Is the US a Christian nation?

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: Do you believe that God is able to provide additional evidence that would cause at least some people in the entire word to love and accept him partly because of the additional evidence.

Please file this away for future use as it is the cause of mountain's of unnecessary and ignorance based contention.

Being Omnipotent is an issue of capacity not will or expression. God can end all life as we know it this second but he chooses not to do so. He could create evidence of such an amount and such quality that everyone on Earth would have no choice but to believe (knowing is believing in a way). He could have just skipped the whole things and made us automaton's. You must include his goals, purposes, and restrictions that allowing to have freewill imposes on a capacity that is unlimited. He choose based on these to act or not act but at no time could not act if he desired or purposed to. You are basically asking me how many horsepower God has without think about how that engine operates based on it's purpose. God does not intend to provide more than he has. It meets his purpose. I have no way of knowing but maybe God has provided exactly the amount of evidence needed by anyone whom reasonable evidence would convince.

I do not mind the questions but you have only your soul to be concerned with. You have a Bible full of evidence, some of the greatest experts on evidence in human history who have written papers on the quality of the testimony in the Bible, me and hundreds more in forums, an internet full of thousands of cases (variously documented) of the miraculous, and everything from first causation arguments to moral foundational ones and a thousand in between spoke on by histories legendary scholars. Unless you move to the bush in the Congo, go deaf, and blind and live in a cave by yourself you have all the evidence and more than has convinced billions so strongly as to give their lives to faith in God. And until you do that you have no reason to argue on behalf of a Congo bushman. Do you refuse to take medicine until everyone has been issued it as well? I am not picking on you I pretty much like you so far. I think you are doing yourself a disservice.

 

[1robin]

I would think that if God really loved and cared about us, he would keep those of us who are highly skeptical in mind, and prove himself beyond doubt to those of us who are likely to dismiss things that others think as miracles for being statistically unlikely but possible or our own senses misinterpreting things.

Do you claim that since billions and billions have been converted that millions and millions more skeptical than you have not been converted? The problem is not evidence (I have been very committed to both sides and know) it is the heart that weighs the evidence. I was once as committed in attacking the truth as I currently am in defending it. The evidence that made the difference had no effect until my heart first changed. The evidence was actually simply watching 3 obedient Christians live their lives which is available to anyone (or 99% anyway). 2 of the three I had known for years and used to challenge their faith constantly, their reply's I considered week until I lost the pride that was causing me to see what I saw in the way I saw it and I then saw it with new eyes. Then and only then did the same thing I had seen for years reach my hard heart and soften it up enough for God to reach. I then spiritually experienced him personally and look back at the same arguments your side makes here and I used to use, as so shameful (to me now) it is hard to bear remembering those days since I have been saved.

 

[1robin]

That is absurd since you know very well that no amount of miracles will convince everyone to accept any religion. If a real God showed up, and performed many miracles, the same kinds of miracles that Jesus performed, some people would believe that he was an advanced alien. "Everyone" is not the issue. Rather, "anyone" is the issue. Can God convince "anyone" else to love and accept him by providing additional evidence? If he is omnipotent, he easily could, but he would not even have to be omnipotent to easily do that.

I think that a bity of a copout. So your standard is not anything beyond more. I can't debate a moving target so ambiguous that the one who created it can't quantify it. Find me a single verse that can be used to indicate God promised to provide the amount of evidence to convert the amount of people you have decided is enough which is based on what? If you wish we can simply discuss the logical absurdities and fallacies of just what your saying one this point alone. I have instead looked for a way get you to see why what your asking is not a coherent question.

But it is not a question of people demanding more evidence. It is a question of to what extent God will go the get more people saved, and help them not to be punished for eternity without parole. It would not be difficult at all for God, out of love, mercy, and compassion, to provide additional evidence that at least some people would accept.

He went to the extent of allowing his own son to be separated from him and killed for crimes he did not commit, by those he forgave as they were doing it. That son is also the most influential person in history and appears in the most influential book in history which contain some of the most miraculous events in human history and has continued doing those same things even to our time. In what way can you demand more than that? You must explain why that was not enough?

Regarding sexual abstinence for homosexuals, you have often made an argument that if a practice provides gain, with no loss, it is a good practice.

No I said the opposite. Gain is not necessarily proof that it is justified. However an increase in suffering with no corresponding reason it must take place is almost always wrong. A war may be an exception in some aspects. I never once said what you said I did.

If God provided additional evidence, just the same kinds of miracles that Jesus performed, surely some people would become Christians partly as a result of the evidence. That would be all gain, with no loss, for both God, and for the people who accepted the evidence.

Since was based on a mistake I will not address it.

But I have already adequately replied to that argument. I basically told you that although some people will refuse to accept additional evidence, others will not, just like allegedly happened during the time of Jesus.

How do you know what anyone would do. You probably do not believe this but you do not even know what you will do. In my case and millions of others no additional evidence made the difference it was how we saw the same evidence we always had. God parted the read sea for the Jews (between 50,000 and 400,000) plus countless other Earth shaking miracles yet almost all denied him eventually. Every single one of them lost their faith to the point they could not enter the promise land (that is not to say this group is not in heaven) but maybe 70% of them completely rebelled against a God who had given them more evidence than anyone in history. I think Joshua was the only one that never did. All the evidence in the world can do what you seem to think it can. As a counter part to this billions have been saved and believed based on no more miraculous evidence than you have right this second. When Moses parted the sea some of the leaders watching yelled witch craft. When Jesus drove out demons God's own priests (or so they believed themselves to be) yelled that Christ was from Satan. God known when to do miracles. Why don't you leave it to him? You have more evidence than most Christian's in history have had by far available to you and none of many of their problems with being killed for converting. I am starting to think that you think this is a type of claim that can be used to argue against God not that you sincerely wish an answer at all. It isn't. This argument as it is used in the debate circuit has this undeniable response: You must demonstrate that you have proof that if God does exist you should have more evidence than you do. Until you can do that (good luck) it is not even an argument at all.

 

[1robin]

They could just stop being African-American and Hispanic. I don't buy that nonsense about them 'being born that way'!

Ambiguous guy, you do not know it but you have met your match. You two are likely to create a vortex and disappear. Your are almost impossible to figure out and he is almost impossible to slow down. The friction of your arguments alone ought to create more energy than a fusion reactor. Maybe you two will mutually annihilate each other. Also homosexuality is his pet issue. Good luck to you both. I need to find a safe distance from the computer for this.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: Please make a post in my thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151019-do-other-universes-exist.html,

I can address that in a few sentences.

I have no idea and neither does any other person on Earth. The most reliable cosmological model suggests there is one finite universe. There exists no reliable evidence (in fact none at all, nor even a potentiality for any) for another universe. It is an argument from silence at this time and there is no reason to think it always will be. This is something that is true regardless of what anyone claims (some ridiculous camera hunting science fiction scientists might attempt to claim otherwise) but they are wrong. Very few scientific issues will I ever say I am right and if any disagree they are wrong (concerning the above). Multiverses are simply not a relevant fantasy at the moment at all. I can get detailed but hope I do not have to.

 

[Agnostic75]

Please file this away for future use as it is the cause of mountain's of unnecessary and ignorance based contention.

Being Omnipotent is an issue of capacity not will or expression. God can end all life as we know it this second but he chooses not to do so. He could create evidence of such an amount and such quality that everyone on Earth would have no choice but to believe (knowing is believing in a way).

But the Bible says that the Devil, and one third of the angels knew that God exists, and still rejected him. God did not force them to accept him.

I did not mention anything close to "evidence of such an amount and such quality that everyone on Earth would have no choice but to believe." I said that if God performed the same kinds of miracles that Jesus performed, some people would accept him partly as a result of the miracles.

It is primarily a question of to what extent God will go to prevent people from being punished for eternity without parole.

Regarding sexual abstinence for homosexuals, you have often made an argument that if a practice provides gain, with no loss, it is a good practice. If God provided additional evidence, just the same kinds of miracles that Jesus performed, surely some people would become Christians partly as a result of the evidence. That would be all gain, with no loss, for both God, and for the people who accepted the evidence. God would have nothing whatsoever to lose, and many people would have much to gain.

 

[Agnostic75]

Is something ok because something else is worse? I have already stated several times that gluttony is as morally wrong as homosexuality.......

Fine, but no one who has a preventable health problem, or is making unnecessary contributions to global warming, is in any position to claim that homosexuality is immoral. That would make the number of legitimate opponents of homosexuality smaller by many millions of people, possibly hundreds of millions of people. Some experts have predicted that in 2030, which is only 17 years from now, half of Americans will be obese, and that that would add 500 million dollars to health care costs. Obesity is often preventable, as is heart disease. Cancer is often preventable, but less so than obesity, and heart disease.

If you can guarantee that those who are monogamous will always be so then that might be important.

Can you reasonably prove that monogamous heterosexuals remain monogamous a good deal longer than monogamous homosexuals do?

Why should monogamous homosexuals who have been monogamous for decades practice abstinence?

If the STD rates of monogamous lesbians were similar to the STD rates of heterosexual males, would you object to monogamous lesbians?

The highest HIV rates for heterosexual men in the U.S. by far are by African American men. Do you recommend that all heterosexual African American men should practice abstinence?

An article at http://www.howaboutwe.com/date-report/when-gay-couples-get-married-are-they-monogamous/# says:

"Chan and Hornedo, [two gay men] still happily married, believe monogamy is “the only healthy channel for a long-lasting, fulfilling relationship."

Why should homosexuals like them practice abstinence?

Some monogamous homosexuals who died lived their entire lives as monogamous homosexuals. Do you object to those homosexuals?

One study showed that in about 21 American cities, 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV. Quite naturally, if only monogamous homosexuals had been studied, well over 90'% of those homosexuals would have had HIV, maybe over 95%.

About half of homosexuals are monogamous.

If cures for all STD's were found, would you still object to homosexuality?

 

[1robin]

But the Bible says that the Devil, and one third of the angels knew that God exists, and still rejected him. God did not force them to accept him.

That is an example of exactly what I said. God could have (Omni-potently) forced them to stay but his purpose demanded his capacity not be enacted by his will. Saying can do something is not to say he will.

I did not mention anything close to "evidence of such an amount and such quality that everyone on Earth would have no choice but to believe." I said that if God performed the same kinds of miracles that Jesus performed, some people would accept him partly as a result of the miracles.

I already clarified a restatement to account for this. You are the most redundant poster I have ever seen. (in fact almost the only one). Replace everyone with whatever amount you arbitrarily decided is enough and answer.

It is primarily a question of to what extent God will go to prevent people from being punished for eternity without parole.

I have already posted the examples of where he went far far beyond anything you have any reason to demand. Have you missed some of my posts somewhere?

Regarding sexual abstinence for homosexuals, you have often made an argument that if a practice provides gain, with no loss, it is a good practice. If God provided additional evidence, just the same kinds of miracles that Jesus performed, surely some people would become Christians partly as a result of the evidence. That would be all gain, with no loss, for both God, and for the people who accepted the evidence. God would have nothing whatsoever to lose, and many people would have much to gain.

Are posting the same post in several threads? I have answered this exact post minus the Devil stuff already. What are you doing to what little time I have?

 

[1robin]

Fine, but no one who has a preventable health problem, or is making unnecessary contributions to global warming, is in any position to claim that homosexuality is immoral. That would make the number of legitimate opponents of homosexuality smaller by many millions of people, possibly hundreds of millions of people. Some experts have predicted that in 2030, which is only 17 years from now, half of Americans will be obese, and that that would add 500 million dollars to health care costs. Obesity is often preventable, as is heart disease. Cancer is often preventable, but less so than obesity, and heart disease.

So unless I am perfect I can't claim murder or anything else wrong. You just doomed the entire human race to no one being able to make a law about anything else. I would love to see you rule your own planet. Even if I commit every sin on earth including murder, that would not mean my statement that Murder is wrong is its self wrong. Murder is wrong or not on it's own. A persons conduct has nothing to do with it. I know what you intended to say but used up all my time dealing with what you actually did say.

Can you reasonably prove that monogamous heterosexuals remain monogamous a good deal longer than monogamous homosexuals do?

That would only apply if the behavior was equally damaging and had equally good reasons to be practiced anyway. However I think even homosexuals admit their "marriages last less than others do" but do not claim to know that nor that it has anything to do with my claims at all.

Why should monogamous homosexuals who have been monogamous for decades practice abstinence?

I have already answered this.

If the STD rates of monogamous lesbians were similar to the STD rates of heterosexual males, would you object to monogamous lesbians?

I object to them now but have much less grounds for doing so.

The highest HIV rates for heterosexual men in the U.S. by far are by African American men. Do you recommend that all heterosexual African American men should practice abstinence?

African American-ness is not possible to stop for those that are that. It is not an action it is a quality. I see you have dusted off some of your very worst arguments here.

An article at http://www.howaboutwe.com/date-report/when-gay-couples-get-married-are-they-monogamous/# says:

"Chan and Hornedo, [two gay men] still happily married, believe monogamy is “the only healthy channel for a long-lasting, fulfilling relationship."

They are absolutely wrong. Their are at least male on male serious medical problems with even monogamous relationships. At best it is less destructive than non-monogamy. Those names are hilarious for some reason.

Why should homosexuals like them practice abstinence?

See above. You do realize that for your benefit we have simply assumed there is no God and they will not be judged. Is that possibility not even a factor on top of all the other known reason to stop it or at least not enable it. I care little for mandating behavior in this respect but would draw the line on marriage and the military.

Some monogamous homosexuals who died lived their entire lives as monogamous homosexuals. Do you object to those homosexuals?

Yes but not personally. It did not hurt me in anyway that I know of.

One study showed that in about 21 American cities, 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV. Quite naturally, if only monogamous homosexuals had been studied, well over 90'% of those homosexuals would have had HIV, maybe over 95%.

About half of homosexuals are monogamous.

If cures for all STD's were found, would you still object to homosexuality?

This is getting monotonous, maybe Monday. I am sure you will post these same facts about a dozen more times. I have grown to like you so my jabs are in meant in jest only.

 

[SkepticThinker]

African American-ness is not possible to stop for those that are that. It is not an action it is a quality. I see you have dusted off some of your very worst arguments here.

And that's where the problem is here. Homosexuality is not an action. It is a sexual attraction to people of the same sex.

 

[Agnostic75]

That is an example of exactly what I said. God could have (Omni-potently) forced them to stay but his purpose demanded his capacity not be enacted by his will. Saying can do something is not to say he will.

You said that God could force people to accept him if he wanted to, but God did not do that with the Devil, and with one third of the angels, and I am not asking him to do that now, so your comment was not valid. All that I am asking is that God perform the same kinds of miracles today that Jesus performed, and perform them all over the world, including before all non-Christians, and give everyone the same opportunities to accept him that Jesus did. That would be all gain, and no loss, for God, and for people who accepted him partly as a result of the miracles.

As far as God's purpose is concerned, surely no moral God could have a legitimate purpose to send Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans, causing a vast amount of needless suffering for humans, and innocent animals, and destroying lots of homes. Surely any moral God could carry out his purposes without doing that. If God had a legitimate purpose in doing that, why did Christians who lived in New Orleans try to escape the hurricane, and minimize damage from the hurricane? If God wants to destroy people's homes, why would Christians want to prevent that from happening?

 

[Agnostic75]

Can you reasonably prove that monogamous heterosexuals remain monogamous a good deal longer than monogamous homosexuals do?

That would only apply if the behavior was equally damaging and had equally good reasons to be practiced anyway.

I do not have any idea what that means. Can you state it more simply?

Some excellent reasons why monogamous homosexuals should have sex are that 1) having sex provides proven health benefits, 2) long term abstinence has proven health risks, 3) having sex is normal, 4) long term abstinence is abnormal, and 5) homosexuals who have been monogamous for decades would have greater risks practicing long term abstinence than they would living as monogamous couples.

You need to provide statistics regarding the percentage of people who try long term abstinence and are successful, and do not develop any serious physical, and emotional problems.

However I think even homosexuals admit their "marriages last less than others do".......

Evidence please.

.......but do not claim to know that.......

Then you have no evidence to back up your assumption.

.......nor that it has anything to do with my claims at all.

It has everything to do with your claim that monogamous homosexuals should practice abstinence. The only way that your claim would be valid would be if you provided documented evidence that monogamous homosexuals give up being monogamous a good deal more than monogamous heterosexuals do.

 

[Agnostic75]

African American-ness is not possible to stop for those that are that. It is not an action it is a quality. I see you have dusted off some of your very worst arguments here.

Consider the following:

CDC ? Factsheet ? African Americans ? Racial/Ethnic Groups ? Risk ? HIV/AIDS

African Americans face a number of challenges that contribute to the higher rates of HIV infection.

The greater number of people living with HIV (prevalence) in African American communities and the fact that African Americans tend to have sex with partners of the same race/ethnicity means that they face a greater risk of HIV infection with each new sexual encounter.

African American communities continue to experience higher rates of other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) compared with other racial/ethnic communities in the United States. Having an STI can significantly increase the chance of getting or transmitting HIV.

The poverty rate is higher among African Americans—28%—than for any other race. The socioeconomic issues associated with poverty—including limited access to high-quality health care, housing, and HIV prevention education—directly and indirectly increase the risk for HIV infection, and affect the health of people living with and at risk for HIV infection.

African Americans are at risk largely for the reasons that the CDC mentioned. Later in the article, the CDC tells about its prevention programs for black Americans, but those programs will take years, and will have varying degrees of success. According to your philosophy, pending the outcomes of the CDC's prevention programs, and other prevention programs, black American males who live in black American communities should practice abstinence, not because they are black, but because of the risk factors that they have. If they were able to become Caucasians, they would still have the same risk factors, and should still practice abstinence according to your philosophy pending the outcomes of prevention programs.

 

[1robin]

You said that God could force people to accept him if he wanted to, but God did not do that with the Devil, and with one third of the angels, and I am not asking him to do that now, so your comment was not valid. All that I am asking is that God perform the same kinds of miracles today that Jesus performed, and perform them all over the world, including before all non-Christians, and give everyone the same opportunities to accept him that Jesus did. That would be all gain, and no loss, for God, and for people who accepted him partly as a result of the miracles.

As far as God's purpose is concerned, surely no moral God could have a legitimate purpose to send Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans, causing a vast amount of needless suffering for humans, and innocent animals, and destroying lots of homes. Surely any moral God could carry out his purposes without doing that. If God had a legitimate purpose in doing that, why did Christians who lived in New Orleans try to escape the hurricane, and minimize damage from the hurricane? If God wants to destroy people's homes, why would Christians want to prevent that from happening?

I can't believe as smart as you are you still do not get this. Capacity does not dictate action. God can make the universe blink out of existence if he wished, that does not dictate he must. Freewill is his will. Freewill does dictate wrong choices are possible. His will dictates that consequences (specific and general) result as proof they were wrong. That accounts for God's character and capacity, his will, his purpose, sin, and exactly what we see in the world for all of human history. When you get this or I can explain it we can move on. It is crucial. God could have killed Satan or me the instant we first sinned his purposes demanded that he did not do so. Capacity and will are independent concepts.

 

[Agnostic75]

I can't believe as smart as you are you still do not get this. Capacity does not dictate action. God can make the universe blink out of existence if he wished, that does not dictate he must. Freewill is his will. Freewill does dictate wrong choices are possible. His will dictates that consequences (specific and general) result as proof they were wrong. That accounts for God's character and capacity, his will, his purpose, sin, and exactly what we see in the world for all of human history. When you get this or I can explain it we can move on. It is crucial. God could have killed Satan or me the instant we first sinned his purposes demanded that he did not do so. Capacity and will are independent concepts.

What do you mean by "Capacity does not dictate action."?

Do you agree with me that God is able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love, and accept him, with a gain for himself, and for many people, with no loss for himself, and with no loss for the people who accepted him, and would not interfere with anyone's free will?

Please answer with a simple "yes," or "no," and then you can explain more if you wish. If you believe that God is able to do those things, then my position is that in order to be fair, he should do those things.

If Jesus had performed miracles all over the world, far more people would have accepted him. The same would surely be true today if God empowered some Christians to perform miracles all over the world. Free will would obviously not be an issue any more today than it was during the time of Jesus.

Why doesn't God maximize the number of people who can be saved without interfering with their free will? Wouldn't that be loving, and merciful? When Jesus supposedly performed miracles, he did not interfere with anyone's free will. If a human father would do anything possible to save his child from drowning, how much more would a loving God be willing to do everything possible to prevent people from being punished for eternity without parole. If the man's child had died from drowning, no ultimate harm would have been done since God will ultimately take care of the child, but if God refuses to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to become saved, ultimate harm would result since God would needlessly punish many people for eternity without parole.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: From now on, I recommend that we limit out discussions about homosexuality to a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-76.html#post3413082. That will eliminate dancing around to various threads. I just made a post in that thread.

 

[Agnostic75]

Freewill is [God's] will.

No, it is impossible for God to have free will. James 1:13 says "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." Numbers 23:19 says "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

It is impossible for God to sin since it is it nature never to sin. He cannot resist his nature since he is perfect, and cannot be tempted by anything. Will is only free when it has the capacity to be changed. A number of Scriptures say that God does not change. God would never say that he should have done something differently since he knows that he is only able to do what he does. He cannot act contrary to his nature, which would be using free will, and changing his mind.

Freewill does dictate wrong choices are possible.

But we are discussing what God is able to do, not wrong choices by humans.

His will dictates that consequences (specific and general) result as proof they were wrong.

Human actions are not the issue. God's actions are the issue. You keep trying to blame humans for God's refusal to provide people with more evidence.

That accounts for God's character and capacity, his will.......

I have already shown that God does not have free will.

his purpose.......

Hurricane Katrina had no legitimate purpose.

.......sin.......

Humans sins do not warrant God refusing to save more people.

God could have killed Satan or me the instant we first sinned his purposes demanded that he did not do so. Capacity and will are independent concepts.

God does not have free will. Even if he did, his capacity to provide additional evidence is exactly the point. A human father who loves his child has the capacity to act in the best interests of his child, and will act on that capacity to protect, and care for his child. How much more so would a loving God act upon his capacity to prevent people from being punished for eternity without parole?

I can't believe as smart as you are you still do not get this. Capacity does not dictate action. God can make the universe blink out of existence if he wished, that does not dictate he must. Freewill is his will. Freewill does dictate wrong choices are possible. His will dictates that consequences (specific and general) result as proof they were wrong. That accounts for God's character and capacity, his will, his purpose, sin, and exactly what we see in the world for all of human history. When you get this or I can explain it we can move on. It is crucial. God could have killed Satan or me the instant we first sinned his purposes demanded that he did not do so. Capacity and will are independent concepts.

What do you mean by "Capacity does not dictate action."?

Do you agree with me that God is able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love, and accept him, with a gain for himself, and for many people, with no loss for himself, and with no loss for the people who accepted him, and would not interfere with anyone's free will?

Please answer with a simple "yes," or "no," and then you can explain more if you wish. If you believe that God is able to do those things, then my position is that in order to be fair, he should do those things.

If Jesus had performed miracles all over the world, far more people would have accepted him. The same would surely be true today if God empowered some Christians to perform miracles all over the world. Free will would obviously not be an issue any more today than it was during the time of Jesus.

Why doesn't God maximize the number of people who can be saved without interfering with their free will? Wouldn't that be loving, and merciful? When Jesus supposedly performed miracles, he did not interfere with anyone's free will. If a human father would do anything possible to save his child from drowning, how much more would a loving God be willing to do everything possible to prevent people from being punished for eternity without parole. If the man's child had died from drowning, no ultimate harm would have been done since God will ultimately take care of the child, but if God refuses to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to become saved, ultimate harm would result since God would needlessly punish many people for eternity without parole.

 

[1robin]

And that's where the problem is here. Homosexuality is not an action. It is a sexual attraction to people of the same sex.

I do not believe that whatever attraction there is can't be remedied or changed. I am attracted to lots of things I either do not indulge in or have tried and loved only to realize they are harmful and stopped (sometimes after years of doing them, sadly). We are all born wanting to do or attracted to what is not right. I thought of a type of data that I could have confidence in. With all those genetic markers for homosexuality they should be able to predict who will be one. If you can dig up some reliable info on studies that predicted with high accuracy who would become homosexual prior to age 1 or so that would be very interesting.

 

[1robin]

What do you mean by "Capacity does not dictate action."?

Your claims indicate that if God can do something he must. That is not the case.

Do you agree with me that God is able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love, and accept him, with a gain for himself, and for many people, with no loss for himself, and with no loss for the people who accepted him, and would not interfere with anyone's free will?

I certainly believe he could provide more evidence. I have no way of knowing if that would produce more believers. I also do not think that God is required to do whatever he can to convert everyone or even more people. He is only responsible for giving sufficient evidence to a willing heart. I already gave the verse that said nature alone is enough. The rest is extra. Unless you are not in contact with nature what could you possibly complain about?

Please answer with a simple "yes," or "no," and then you can explain more if you wish. If you believe that God is able to do those things, then my position is that in order to be fair, he should do those things.

You conclusion is not Biblically valid. What constitutes fair here?

If Jesus had performed miracles all over the world, far more people would have accepted him. The same would surely be true today if God empowered some Christians to perform miracles all over the world. Free will would obviously not be an issue any more today than it was during the time of Jesus.

Think of miracles as extra and not essential. Also remember that the Jew's were to be the conduit through which God revealed himself to the world. They were to receive then tell others.

Why doesn't God maximize the number of people who can be saved without interfering with their free will?

That is self contradictory.

Wouldn't that be loving, and merciful?

So you now set the standard as to what is loving and merciful. He let us kill the most important being in the universe, the person he loved the most, in order to forgive us. In what way is that deficient.

When Jesus supposedly performed miracles, he did not interfere with anyone's free will. If a human father would do anything possible to save his child from drowning, how much more would a loving God be willing to do everything possible to prevent people from being punished for eternity without parole.

God is not an earthly father so inequalities can't be equalized. God is God.

If the man's child had died from drowning, no ultimate harm would have been done since God will ultimately take care of the child, but if God refuses to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to become saved, ultimate harm would result since God would needlessly punish many people for eternity without parole.

I think you have another understanding of what Hell is that is not consistent with mine. I believe Hell is the destruction of the body and soul.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

God creates the soul. He supplies that soul with sufficient evidence of his existence. That soul accepts that evidence, denies it, or denies it and demands more. The one that accepts what he was given lives in perfect contentment for eternity. The ones who do not and live a life in rebellion are destroyed forever. The soul they did not create is taken back by the one who did. Not the slightest injustice here. I believe the fire and brimstone forever Hell is based on a misinterpretation of the valley of Gehenna and used by the Catholics to scare folks into church. Only on that view can you begin to make any claims about unfairness.

 

[1robin]

No, it is impossible for God to have free will.

That is not what I said. I said it is God's will that we have freewill.

James 1:13 says "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."

You are making an error here. To claim that God has decided he will not tempt mankind is not to say he could not. He is free to do it but has decided not to. Who or what could bind the will of God, even in theory. To decide I will not chop a tree down does not mean I could not have decided to do so if I wished. You really have trouble with these attributes. Also the words used for temp and tempted in Greek and Hebrew denote effects not actions in many cases. Satan tempted Christ but Christ was never tempted to falter. Do you see the difference? One is an action the other it's effect.

Numbers 23:19 says "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

By your logic here (which is no different than for your capacity reasoning) unless God does everything he is not God. God could lie he chooses not to. The capacity to choose all things is not what freewill means. It means you may freely choose between that which is available to a being. God can't create a round square. That is not because God is not free or capable. It is because it is a logical absurdity.

It is impossible for God to sin since it is it nature never to sin. He cannot resist his nature since he is perfect, and cannot be tempted by anything. Will is only free when it has the capacity to be changed. A number of Scriptures say that God does not change. God would never say that he should have done something differently since he knows that he is only able to do what he does. He cannot act contrary to his nature, which would be using free will, and changing his mind.

That is true. To have freewill means to freely choose those things which are available. You have free will yet can't create a 4 sided triangle. God can't be not God.

You have gotten off on a tangent here. My statement implied it was God's will that we have freewill. What his will is another subject and a more abstract one.

But we are discussing what God is able to do, not wrong choices by humans.

No, you misunderstood my initial statement.

Human actions are not the issue. God's actions are the issue. You keep trying to blame humans for God's refusal to provide people with more evidence.

See above.

I have already shown that God does not have free will.

No you have showed that either God freely chose not to do a certain thing or that certain things are logical possibilities.

Hurricane Katrina had no legitimate purpose.

It was an effect. The cause was that humanity basically told God to F-off so he took his supervision from nature. I do not even understand why you said this.

Humans sins do not warrant God refusing to save more people.

That is exactly what determines who is saved or not. The sin of disbelief being the most determinative. Sin also can determine how the evidence that is seen in understood, I also think it may have a determinative effect of what evidence is given but I would have to think on that a bit though It would be just to suggest that God does not spend as much time in reaching Genghis Kahn as the poor teen who gets in with the wrong crowd for a bit.

God does not have free will. Even if he did, his capacity to provide additional evidence is exactly the point. A human father who loves his child has the capacity to act in the best interests of his child, and will act on that capacity to protect, and care for his child. How much more so would a loving God act upon his capacity to prevent people from being punished for eternity without parole?

To even go down the road you trying so hard to steer for you first must prove that more evidence would produce more faith, that God has not provided sufficient evidence to man, or where the line between enough evidence to make a decision and an amount of evidence that would force conversion exists.

What do you mean by "Capacity does not dictate action."?

I do not know any clearly way to state it. God is perfectly able to save someone who fell off a building but he is under no obligation to do so.

Do you agree with me that God is able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love, and accept him, with a gain for himself, and for many people, with no loss for himself, and with no loss for the people who accepted him, and would not interfere with anyone's free will?

Asking this once is enough. You have asked it at least a dozen times.

Please answer with a simple "yes," or "no," and then you can explain more if you wish. If you believe that God is able to do those things, then my position is that in order to be fair, he should do those things.

Fair. First what is fair in this case and why is God bound by your understanding of fair. God's only obligation is to meet his promises. He would still be perfect and just if he killed us all. NOONE merits heaven. We all deserve Hell. Those that get to heaven do so by the merits of God not theirs.

If Jesus had performed miracles all over the world, far more people would have accepted him. The same would surely be true today if God empowered some Christians to perform miracles all over the world. Free will would obviously not be an issue any more today than it was during the time of Jesus.

This is a repeat. I am going to start simply typing repeat as I find them.

Why doesn't God maximize the number of people who can be saved without interfering with their free will? Wouldn't that be loving, and merciful? When Jesus supposedly performed miracles, he did not interfere with anyone's free will. If a human father would do anything possible to save his child from drowning, how much more would a loving God be willing to do everything possible to prevent people from being punished for eternity without parole. If the man's child had died from drowning, no ultimate harm would have been done since God will ultimately take care of the child, but if God refuses to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to become saved, ultimate harm would result since God would needlessly punish many people for eternity without parole.

Repeat